Tag Archives: Politics

Without wishing to be too dramatic, it seems clear that the world is entering a phase of transition between eras. The parameters of a post-9/11 world are fading and blurring. Osama Bin Laden, the symbolic figurehead of the terrorist threat, is dead and (controversially) buried. A huge financial crisis has sparked a political shift towards liberal, hands-off and most crucially, cheaper government. Things that looked essential in 2001, such as a military presence in Afghanistan, are far harder to justify in 2012. Barack Obama’s first term has been one of stepping back in terms of foreign relations, in an attempt to cool America’s volatile image, despite rising tensions in the Middle East.

Yet domestically Obama has struggled to deliver the hope and change he promised in 2008. He has failed to erase many of the reactionary creations of the Bush administration. People remain detained on dubious legal grounds at Guantanamo Bay, despite the President’s election promises to the contrary. His pledges on greener energy have fallen short. Ambitious and divisive bills on health care and the economy have been sanitised by the American political system. And as governments across the globe tighten their budgets, Obama’s administration has come under increasing attack for spending too much and failing to deal with waste.

One striking example of a wasteful post-9/11 hangover, that needs a rethink in a changing world, is the Transportation Security Administration or TSA. The logic behind this agency was clear back in 2001. The hijacks that enabled the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York represented a massive security breach. Perhaps what was needed, especially in a country as busy and powerful as the US, was a coordinated national approach to airport security. Private companies with loyalties to specific airlines might take their eyes off the ball, or fail to communicate with the authorities in time in the case of an emergency.

Anyone who has been on a flight since 2001 knows about the restrictions now in place. Adapting your luggage for security is a chore, but one most of us have grudgingly accepted. Harder to accept, however, are invasive procedures and the failure of such security measures. In Britain, the introduction of scans that render you practically naked on a screen caused a media storm. There have been high profile security lapses on both sides of the Atlantic, whether it be something slipping through as cargo, or someone smuggling a knife on board.

There are always going to be two sides to this debate. Some will argue that the security measures are ridiculous infringements on personal liberty, which also cost millions, if not billions, of dollars and pounds. Others will say that whilst the threat appears to be diminishing, it will only return if security is seen to lessen in any way. But in America at least, there appears to be a third, middle way emerging. Scrap the TSA, which is riddled with flaws and bureaucratic clutter, and bring in cheaper private companies.

The benefits of one agency coordinating a national approach, are perhaps outweighed by the TSA’s failures. They are shockingly detailed in this infographic from OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree.com.

2011 is already shaping up to be a hugely important political year. We’ve had the Arab Spring and in the last couple of months alone, landscape shifting national crises in phone hacking and the riots. Coalition government is still a whole new kettle of fish that could boil over at any moment. No one’s quite sure, still, where Ed Miliband is going to take the Labour party. The Euro continues to dance with death. And Obama may have killed Bin Laden but is yet to throw his own economy a convincing lifeline.

Amidst the naming, shaming and blaming in the aftermath of England’s rioting, debates about coalition cuts and reforms have once again been lost in the robotic chanting of ideology. Earlier this year the general public mobilised in a reassuringly democratic fashion to force a pause or “listening exercise” in NHS reform. There are whispers in some parts that David Cameron and Andrew Lansley intend to ignore the concerns of the people, under the radar. But Nick Clegg, following his electoral and referendum humiliation in May, ensured us he’d keep an eye on them. Trouble is no one trusts him anymore.

What I’m about to write is more personal than political. I’ve said before that all my political writing has an element of my personality, in that I do my best to express strong opinions, beliefs or half formed ideas I’ve concocted from things I’ve read or consumed. Even professional political commentators are aware that their own preferences influence their coverage. But I’m the first to admit that, as a young man, I am often dealing naively in the abstract. My opinion on defence cuts or the symbolic importance of the Euro is rather ignorant and useless in reality. The NHS however is for all of us and can affect the quality of our everyday lives dramatically. We should all feel able to speak out about its future.

In late September I will begin university life after a gap year I probably wouldn’t have chosen to have. A couple of years ago I was very ill. I lost a lot of weight and barely ate anything. I was frequently in severe pain and unable to socialise with friends in the summer holidays. I could muster enough energy to complete school work and little else. Eventually I was diagnosed with the digestive condition, Crohn’s Disease (http://www.nacc.org.uk/content/home.asp).

After passing through various rungs of the National Health Service I found myself with a steady and capable team of staff at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinic of my local hospital. A variety of treatments got me through Sixth Form and I was relieved to do well in exams, unaffected by the Crohn’s. In order to continue my recovery I chose to have a gap year, although it didn’t feel like I had much choice. I simply had to get healthier.

I started a new treatment of fortnightly injections. This was intended as a longer term solution because I had been taking powerful drugs that could have harmful side effects in the future. Thankfully the injections worked and continued to do so. I could return to a “normal life” with the limitations of my condition minimised. I felt grateful to be as healthy as I could be. My worries were mostly those of ordinary people my age and I was able to grow as a freelance writer and enjoy the year.

Now though health related stress is making a comeback. With university imminent I am organising the altered delivery and storage of my treatment. And at the last meeting with my doctor a few months ago I was told that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE, who are basically in charge of what doctors can spend on expensive drugs, would want to reassess my case at some stage. The guidelines say that if you’ve been well for a year you should be taken off the costly treatment. I was assured this wouldn’t happen during my transition to university but I am not naive. At some point the decision will be taken away from my doctors.

So then we come back to NHS reform. I had always been instinctively against the predominantly Conservative proposals. But my doctor said something along the lines of; if it were his choice he obviously wouldn’t even consider withdrawal of the treatment for a long while. David Cameron has constantly talked of empowering GPs and specialists to make decisions like this which could benefit patients like me. Was I against these reforms or not?

The main problem is a lack of understanding. Do you fully understand what is being proposed? I don’t. I’m betting no one, bar those involved with the actual legislation, really does. The pause has actually complicated things further. In fact even those with all the facts of the legislation can’t comprehend every little consequence in real life for real people. Letting doctors decide sounds good. But shouldn’t the bulk of their time be spent treating patients? Shouldn’t someone independent make such decisions?

My attitude towards NHS reform has taught me that whilst I lean to the liberal left or centre with my political thinking, my actual opinions can be rather conservative. Change has always stressed me out in everyday life. If something as vital as the NHS ain’t broke, don’t meddle with it, especially when the country is trying to save money. I got better eventually, that’s all that matters.

I’ve long thought that the real way to help improve standards and ensure sustainability for the future is to cut down the sprawling responsibilities of the NHS, whilst reinforcing vital areas. It seems logical and fair that treatments that aren’t essential should not be given priority. Equally those that bring about their own illnesses should come second to the more deserving and hard done by. We need tougher health based taxes to directly fund the NHS and ease its burden, doing whatever we can to discourage the abundance of drinking and smoking cases that weigh it down. Granted this view comes from the fact that I was born with asthma and have other conditions, like Crohn’s and eczema, I could do nothing to prevent. I hold a selfish view. But then everyone gets their opinions from somewhere and all I believe in is a fair, efficient health service.

Again though what I thought I believed has been turned upside down by what’s happening to me in real life. NICE are the body responsible for ensuring that the NHS spends its money wisely and on those who need it. They are also the body that could at any point in the future remove my funding and leave me without treatment. I might stay healthy or I could plunge back into an illness it will take a long time to escape from. It could be even harder to recover second time round and the injections might not work twice.

The NHS is something Britain is envied for around the world and it is a genuine reason to be proud of our country. Cameron is saying Britain is broken again and pictures of the riots have been beamed out internationally. But we can be proud of the NHS. Overall I am happy with what it has done for me but the uncertainty hanging over my future proves it’s not perfect. It can’t be. It aims to be perfect, trying to make everyone better all of the time. Because it reaches so high it can’t get it right for each individual; whatever politicians decide to do will not change this fact.

But every decision they do make about the NHS will have life changing consequences for someone, somewhere in the system. For people like me
and people far worse off than me. So they should continue to think carefully
and trial new ideas before making sweeping changes. I’ve written before about
the government’s NHS plans but this article is an admission. I do not know
whether it’s best to stick or twist. All I can yelp ineffectually into the
blogosphere is that I hope the decision makers understand the gravity of what
they are doing, and that we keep doing our best to keep up and pay attention.

I just watched Inside Job. It was one of those films I felt I had to see, rather than desperately wanting to. I am glad I did watch it though. I am still reeling from the impact of its message.

I was expecting to agree with the thrust of the film’s argument about the excesses and ludicrous risk taking of the financial sector but I wasn’t prepared for just how persuasive its case would be. I find it hard to disagree with the view that the banking system should be divided into small high street firms for the general public’s savings and more adventurous, some might say dangerous, investment arms, prone to failure. In fact it’s my personal view that such a separation is the sensible and right course of action for both future fairness and stability.

But I had a feeling that Inside Job’s argument would only preach to the converted. It would not make a dent in the ideologies of those who believe in minimal regulation and a laissez faire approach to economics. Many in this camp are brainwashed and privileged; too stubborn or selfish to admit that the global collapse that began with Lehman Brothers in 2008 changes everything they supported. However some have genuine intellectual and pragmatic reasons for insisting too much government control is a bad thing. They need to be won over to a middle way that recognises not all regulation is bad and that indeed given what has happened, some is vital. An essentially left wing argument, with elements of conspiracy hinted at by the title of Charles Ferguson’s film, would not convince this group.

Whilst there are elements of what I predicted in the content of Inside Job, it actually fashions an argument independent of political viewpoint, based primarily on undeniable facts, which cannot be ignored. The film’s title refers to the overlapping and conflicts of interest between key segments of the banking crisis; from government to investment bank CEOS, from rating agencies to universities. This is not an unfounded or merely possible conspiracy but a cold, hard reality of vested interests, dominated by a handful of men, which control the world’s fortunes through their self interested greed.

Time and again Inside Job illustrates how bank bosses pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bonuses would crossover into so called “regulation” jobs for the US government, and then leave to go back to working for banks which they could have favoured during supposedly impartial decisions about government policy. The rating agencies that approved risky transactions were paid by the banks, so had no reason to be accurate or give warnings. The decision makers would then lecture at prestigious universities like Harvard to justify what they and others had done and ensure the next generation does the same. The justification would always be that finance is too complicated for us plebs to understand.

Whatever your opinion on the right solution to the problem, whatever your political allegiances, it’s clear that conflicts of interest on such a scale could only lead to corruption or at the very least incompetence. When the credits for Inside Job rolled I found myself not only digesting its gobsmacking and concise revelations but looking at the recent phone hacking scandal in a new light.

In many ways the News International crisis has gone beyond party political differences. Parliament voted as one to block Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of BskyB. Political leaders of all colours were condemning the illegal actions of rogue journalists and private investigators, as well as their own close relations with the media. MPs responded to public outrage. But on Wednesday Labour leader Ed Miliband was accused of being partisan when he grilled the Prime Minister in the Commons about the reasoning behind his appointment of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who it now seems must surely have known about or even sanctioned illegal practices. David Cameron counterattacked Miliband’s interrogation by labelling him as a hypocrite and opportunist. Despite some awkward questions from other MPs, which
Cameron refused to give straight answers to, he generally wriggled out of a
tight spot.

Some might say this is fair enough. The incidents being analysed throughout this scandal took place under a Labour government. The Prime Minister has released details of his meetings with editors and News International, to be “transparent”. Tony Blair’s New Labour started the culture of greed which made not just aspiration but being rich ok and desirable, and also created the Westminster culture of spin with media handlers like Alastair Campbell at every Downing Street meeting. Cameron’s relationship with Andy Coulson might even be described as refreshing, given that he refused to ditch a man he regarded as a friend at the first sign of trouble.

Even before watching Inside Job though I disagreed with the way Cameron shot down Miliband. As leader of the opposition it’s Miliband’s duty and his job to pressure and question the Prime Minister. He also has genuine reasons to doubt his integrity, fuelled by public demands for clarity. After watching Inside
Job I can see that conflicts of interest like the one David Cameron found himself in, working with Coulson and leading a government approving the BskyB
takeover, are just tiny steps away from catastrophe and corruption. Miliband
must continue to expose Cameron’s mistake and continue to ask for public
assurances that it won’t happen again.

Inside Job is a surprisingly gripping watch. It lost me during some sections of economic explanation but for the most part constructs a message that resonates
independently of mathematical or political understanding. It remains topical
and relevant for a number of reasons, concluding with the revelation that
President Obama kept on the architects of the 2008 crisis to rebuild the
economy more sustainably. It is a sobering reminder of the huge limitations and
inequalities of life in a modern democracy.

The ongoing and increasingly shocking twists and turns of
the News of the World hacking scandal has prompted a complete rethink of the way we all think about the media. The public’s fury has rightly been fuelled by disgusting revelations exposing criminal practices that targeted ordinary
people or even the likes of vulnerable missing children. Prior to the game
changing news stories of recent weeks though, we were not all that bothered
about the odd tabloid listening in on the occasional romp or row between
footballers or actresses. An intense debate about privacy raged amongst some,
closely linked to the super injunction headlines from earlier in the year, but
for the vast majority of us the underhand tactics of the press were a given
that thankfully didn’t affect our daily lives.

But the momentous events of the past week have shown that
bad habits in an industry as far reaching as the media have to be taken
seriously. No one can avoid the press or the news in the modern world. Even if
you don’t buy newspapers you will blindly consume headlines or leave some bland breakfast show on in the background to help you acclimatise to the new day.

Morning Glory’s critical reception was lukewarm when it was
released in January of this year. It was universally dubbed a thoroughly ok
romantic comedy, riddled with flaws and sprinkled with just a smidgen of
appeal. In the light of the never ending phone hacking saga though, its message
is given far greater relevance and urgency.

One aspect of our relationship with the media highlighted by
the scandal, but buried under an avalanche of corruption and foul play, is
whether or not news has become too fluffy and meaningless. Defenders of certain tactics employed by the paparazzi say that the private lives of celebrities are only ruthlessly analysed because paying readers demand it. Whatever happened to “real” news items about ethical, humanitarian or political issues? It might still be possible to find some hard stories on the likes of Newsnight but in
the mainstream press, and on popular breakfast shows, the bulk of the content
focuses on fluffy items about rescue dogs or a woman who miraculously lost
weight by eating nothing except bacon.

Morning Glory is set in the world of breakfast telly. It follows Rachel McAdams as Becky Fuller, whose (somewhat strange) childhood dream is to make it to a big network as a producer of a news show. She loses her job at Good Morning New Jersey, where she was hoping to get promoted, and applies
everywhere until Jeff Goldblum calls her up and offers her the job at the
failing Daybreak, America’s least favourite start to the day. Becky ignores the
negatives like the bickering anchors and the nonexistent budget, choosing
instead to work as hard as she always has to make her dream a reality now she’s
finally at a network.

It doesn’t take long for Becky to stumble on, in her own bumbling way, the solution to Daybreak’s woes. She vows to get Harrison Ford’s legendary newsman Mike Pomeroy to replace her terrible male presenter, proving
in the process that you should never meet your heroes. The film follows her as
she sets about boosting the awful ratings of the show, which is just six weeks
away from being axed.

Morning Glory definitely has a whole host of things wrong with it, chiefly an uneven script with some dreary dialogue and pointless subplots. But it glides along averagely enough, throwing mostly unsuccessful cheap gags in your face. Its opening scene is a bafflingly awful way to start a film, which takes a sledgehammer approach to establishing that Becky is a busy
and clumsy character. Such weaknesses in the script let down Rachel McAdams, as she is for the most part a capable and attractive lead.

This is also a rom com with its fair share of positives however. It’s refreshing to see Harrison Ford having some fun on screen and most of the cast are good; even Patrick Wilson does alright with his underdeveloped love interest. There are also some belly laughs in the middle when the, far from sophisticated, physical humour is undeniably funny as the weatherman is put through his paces on a rollercoaster, all in the name of ratings. Then there’s the message behind it all.

The climax of Morning Glory sees Harrison Ford’s Pomeroy
trying to prove that there is a place for real, breaking news on morning
television. It is genuinely inspiring to see some substance injected into all
the ridiculous antics in the kitchen or out in the field. The hacking scandal
has given journalists and readers a much needed wake up call, hopefully in
terms of content as well ethical behaviour. Of course there’s a place for
entertainment and light chat, especially in the bleary eyed early hours, but
there is also always a place for enlightening fact and information. One need
not be sacrificed for the other. A great news story can also be great
television and great entertainment.

Morning Glory is far from faultless but when the credits
rolled it had won me over. It has an uplifting soundtrack, filled with songs
from the likes of Natasha Bedingfield and Michael Buble, and music from Bond
composer David Arnold. It may leave little time for subplots or romance to
develop but this does for once realistically show the all consuming day to day
life of a career focused protagonist. Above all this it is a fun romantic
comedy with something worthwhile to say, which is a rare thing these days. In
this way it mirrors what successful breakfast TV should be about (take note
Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley from ITV’s own Daybreak).

Ed Miliband may have found a way to shake off the label “Red Ed”. Unfortunately for him it could simply be replaced by the even more damaging nickname “Robot Ed”.

It’s hard to believe that just last September Miliband’s acceptance speech as leader of the Labour party was greeted by a chorus of relief. The wooden and cold Gordon Brown had been replaced by a youthful, honest, reasonable and approachable man, not afraid to at least attempt a joke and flash a bumbling but genuine smile. Now though Miliband’s PR machine is working so hard to preserve this flattering initial image of reason and humanity, that they have forgotten to let him be natural at any moment, even between highly choreographed press conferences or interviews.

I am always keen to write about the policy as opposed to the personalities of politics. The culture of spin and press manipulation too often overshadows the important debates about what Britain needs or what would be a better way of doing things. There are so many pressing challenges to thrash out swift but credible and long term solutions to, that it is plain irresponsible and arrogant to get bogged down in ideological or personal differences. Miliband’s shadow cabinet have been far too slow to produce viable and inspiring policy ideas.

However as the shocking revelations of the past week have shown, dishonesty and deceit are facts of life on a national scale. Rightly or wrongly the public digests the truths, half truths, lies and simplifications of the press every day. And for the average voter that mysterious quality of “likeability” will always prove crucial to which party they back at the polls.

Ed Miliband’s team are clearly aware of this, as anyone working in politics must be. But rather than supporting the key work on policy behind the scenes, the Labour leader’s media experts have meddled to such an obvious and unsubtle extent, that the overwhelming impression of Miliband amongst the public of late has been one of fakery and artificiality. The most embarrassing incident for Miliband has been the exposure of this interview about the planned strike of teachers across the country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI

It makes for excruciating viewing. The journalist conducting the interview has written and spoken about his frustration. And it really is the sort of snippet behind the curtain of political life at the grim reality of it all that makes you doubt the truth of anything any MP ever says. Miliband delivers the same answer, reordered a little each time, to ensure a carefully crafted soundbite makes the news. His delivery, seen in context, is terrifyingly robotic. At no point is there even a glimmer of the man himself or a hint of his own opinion.

Ironically Miliband is now speaking out boldly against such negative elements of the press because of the ever growing scandal engulfing News International, forcing the closure of the News of the World. Cynical onlookers will criticise Miliband for yet another case of opportunism. But whatever his political motives, it’s clear that Miliband is putting himself in the firing line of an extremely powerful Murdoch empire in a way that no politician has previously done, to first and foremost, do the right thing. He has defended press freedom throughout and simply called for the proper investigations to go ahead.

In the midst of the phone hacking turmoil, an interview with former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been buried, in which he openly criticised Gordon Brown’s betrayal of New Labour. He stressed the importance of occupying the centre ground to win elections. Miliband responded in an interview with Andrew Marr by saying that he believed the centre ground had moved, presumably to the left.

Another factor Miliband must consider as he takes the initiative on phone hacking, is avoiding categorization as a popular leader of the “politics of protest” Blair warns against, which might count against his credibility as a potential Prime Minister. In other words, the fallout from the News of the World crisis might win Miliband supporters as a leader of the opposition, but ultimately not convince them that he has what it takes to lead the country.

This may be the crisis that establishes Miliband’s credentials as an opposition leader with influence. Then again Miliband may have sowed the seeds of his downfall by angering Murdoch and perhaps even more dangerously, leaving himself open to charges of hypocrisy. His PR team need to dramatically alter their strategy and have more confidence in Miliband’s ability to be himself and to speak through policy. Otherwise the correct case he is making about the BSkyB takeover and the immorality of hacking the phones of Milly Dowler and others, will be undermined and defeated.

Do you think you could hack it behind bars? If you’re a Daily Mail columnist you probably dispute the fact that prisons even have bars anymore. They’ve all been replaced you see, with tasty sticks of rock more in keeping with the dangerously liberal, comfortable satellite TV approach to treating filthy criminals. Being locked up is preferable to a five star hotel. Prisons are merely lavishly furnished warehouses for feral beasts that will be released back into the wilds of society unchanged. The fear factor has gone.

Bring back that shit yourself punishment and all of Britain’s ills will be cured. All this claptrap about human rights and civil liberties has been diluting the taste of our justice system since the 60s, so that it’s nothing more than a bitter sip of lemonade. Prisons should punish first and foremost, to act as a deterrent to the bad apples on the nation’s tree. When they fall they need to be crushed into a pulp and left to rot as an example to others; so the argument roughly goes.

Of course films are not the place to look for a frank and faithful look at the realities of prison life. Just because I’m put off a casual mugging by the possibility of gang rapes such as those in The Shawshank Redemption, doesn’t mean that actual perpetrators within the system encounter such things or that they are deterred by them. Cinema is a place for drama, tension and excitement. But a certain mould of gritty British drama always seems to capture something true about the cooped up existence of convicts, whatever the exaggerations.

In the case of Ghosted, the debut film of writer/director Craig Viveiros, the principal truth is that for many men, the haunting consequences of their crimes are punishment enough. There is also a heightened but believable look at the community of prison life, with its rival factions and dominating personalities pulling the strings. And much of the dialogue is insightful but understated, with main character Jack musing that, if nothing else, empty hours in a cell day after day give you plenty of time to think.

Jack (John Lynch) is a sensible prisoner, keeping his head down and away from trouble, serving his time. He is approaching the end of his sentence and desperate to get out to see his wife. But at the start of the film she fails to visit him and blanks him when he calls. Just as freedom is within sight his marriage collapses, destroying his hopes for a life on the outside. Gradually we find out more about Jack, eventually getting confirmation that his young son is dead. He burns most of his pictures of him because “sometimes the reminders are too hard in here”.

With just months until Jack is free, a new inmate arrives in the shape of young Paul, played by Martin Compston of The Disappearance of Alice Creed fame. Paul is immediately welcomed by the manipulative Clay, who is described on the marketing material as a “wing overlord”, which sounds like an all powerful evil super villain, but in reality just means a nicer cell, a mildly lucrative drugs racket and the odd fellow prisoner to bang. After the initial niceties Clay starts to use Paul, so Jack steps in and gets him moved to his cell.

This puts Jack in the firing line, resulting in some tense standoffs. The balance of the prison politics is disrupted and Clay is humiliated more than once, prompting him to get revenge. But despite the palpable sense of threat, the really interesting part of Ghosted is the relationship between Jack and Paul.

Jack is the heart of Ghosted and Lynch relished playing him, praising the creative talents of newcomer Viveiros: “It’s been a long, long time since I read a script that’s centred absolutely one hundred per cent on the characters”. In return the director praises his cast who “pumped blood into the story”. Both men are right.

Ghosted is well acted, with even the thugs coming across as something more than just two dimensional bad guys; they have their vulnerabilities too. But Ghosted is also well written and confidently directed so that it does not feel like a debut. Some of the scenes in which Jack and Paul open up to each other, often simply discussing old memories such as when Jack was in Brazil or when Paul was in care, are exemplary examples of characterisation rarely seen in today’s commercial world of cinema.

Ghosted is released in cinemas on the 24th of June and will be available on DVD from the 27th. See it to support a quality British drama with an all star cast, which simultaneously pays tribute to classic prison stories and approaches the issue from a new angle. Try to spot the emotional hammer blow of a twist at the end.

Like it or not, love him or loathe him, David Cameron has proved himself to be a competent and capable leader in his first year in Number 10. He has shown himself to be easily the most adaptable Prime Minister of the 21st century and perhaps the most versatile and formidable party leader too. He has embraced the unique hurdles and challenges of coalition government to at once deliver radical policy his party believes in and please the electorate. He has vowed not to make the mistake of Tony Blair’s early years, in which political capital went unspent. He’s taken a blitzkrieg approach to numerous important issues and departments, somehow taking most of the country with him through a combination of confidence and yellow human shields.

Ed Miliband on the other hand, has been constantly under fire from both the media and Britain as a whole, and his own party. His leadership is generally, and not unjustifiably, characterised as ineffectual and inactive. He has more often than not chosen to stand by and do nothing but protest vocally at government plans. He has claimed to be the voice of Britain’s ordinary people and its “progressive majority”. His critics say that this majority doesn’t exist and even those that think it might, recognise that it has to be earned and forged from blood, sweat, tears and most crucially of all, policy.

Labour under Ed Miliband has produced almost no policy. His supporters and aides will argue that he’s been focusing on healing Labour’s image, bruised and battered by thirteen years of controversial government. But there has been no clear rebranding or change of direction either. The publication of elder brother David’s would-be acceptance speech last week highlighted just how much more Ed could have done from the start. I was critical of David’s lazy leadership campaign and even praised Ed’s more concrete vision. Looking at David Miliband’s speech though, it’s hard to argue with those who say he would be doing better as leader right now.

The speech sets out the deficit as Britain’s key political argument. It simultaneously does more to defend Labour’s record in government and admit its mistakes than Ed has done. It systematically addresses key areas with attractive focus; Ed’s speech tended to waffle more generally, focusing on alerting the world to the fact that he was an alright sort of guy. Well now we all want to know what he’s going to do to prove it.

To make things worse for the victorious Miliband, his shadow cabinet has hardly had time to settle. Alan Johnson didn’t last long as Shadow Chancellor. There has already been more than one reshuffle. Ed Balls, finally in the role he has craved for so long, is Labour’s only ray of activity. Last week he announced the one concrete policy they have in opposition; increase the bonus tax on bankers. Balls intends to gather support from rebellious Lib Dem and even Conservative MPs to push a Bill through Parliament that would take more money from the banks to fund employment schemes for the young and house building projects; to stop the rot on growth.

Now it’s obvious that one of Miliband’s weak points has been his inability to do much else besides bash the banks. Credible Prime Ministers cannot afford to make such powerful enemies or be defined by the one headline grabbing policy. But the plans of his money man Ed Balls are exactly the type of thing Labour should be doing more of. The government’s refusal to invest in the economy or change course on its programme of cuts is doing lasting damage. Labour cannot afford to just talk about this. They should hit the coalition where it hurts; by acting to safeguard the national interest it claims to be working for.

And Miliband could go further. He could say that a Labour government would not just build homes for struggling first time buyers but insist that they are all green. Labour needs a new stamp that marks out policy as theirs, which goes further than simply investment vs. cuts. As David Miliband set out, Labour has to acknowledge that it will tackle the deficit; the question is how will it do it differently?

Ed should make it abundantly clear that he is proposing policies for consideration now, intending to pass them now because to act too late would let the state of the economy and the government’s initiatives do irreparable harm. More house building would kick start the construction industry; more homes would get the property markets moving and add stability to a fragile, slow recovery.

Miliband has continually fallen back on the fact that the party in opposition traditionally keeps its cards close to its chest until an election. People should not be expecting him to be outlining detailed policy now, he says. I defended criticisms of him early on by using the argument that he shouldn’t rush through thinking about such important issues. But he has had time now. He must have some ideas. And he needs to start sharing them.

This is not an ordinary government. The coalition can be stalled, halted and persuaded on almost any issue. Parliament is not a sea of blue and carefully selected opposition proposals could become law. The NHS “listening exercise” and the rethink of Ken Clarke’s justice reform are examples from the past week alone where Cameron has been swayed enough to track back. Ed Miliband needs to do something bold to win the respect of voters. Disclosing genuine alternatives in full and frank detail will show that Labour care enough to act in the country’s interest, not their own.

I write just hours after both leaders in the contest for the nation’s political affections made important speeches on policy. As is the trend of late, it was David Cameron’s that made the greater impact. Speaking to a meeting in London of a foundation called GAVI, backed by Bill Gates, which provides vaccines for the world’s poor, the Prime Minister would have won over voters usually hostile to all things Tory.

His detoxification of his party has been enormously successful and pledging £814 million (the biggest donation of any nation) to an effective charity, goes a long way to satisfying his own voters, thanks to a clear strategy, and others in the electorate. With one speech Cameron scored moral points as well as talking convincingly about finding a clear foreign policy role for Britain based on duty, encouraging private sector growth and stable, democratic government.

Miliband’s speech was also important. It aimed to win back the agenda of community from Cameron, who has dominated the thinking of voters even with his unsuccessful Big Society idea. Miliband talked of responsibility and made surprisingly tough statements about those who didn’t give back not receiving welfare support. There were strong strains of the Blue Labour ideology Miliband recently endorsed, which focuses on democracy and accountability at the grass roots. It was about the overall narrative direction of Miliband’s leadership and designed to answer critics.

However whilst it’s important Miliband finds a stronger and more defined guiding vision for his party, action is what the public wants from him now. For an opposition leader options are limited, so action essentially means policy announcements. The Labour leader needs to be braver and take some gambles with his leadership, to both win over the country and protect it. No one will reward him for waiting until the election.